Deletions and Additions to the Blogroll

I've deleted two links to "spikier" and more ideological Anglo-Catholic blogs, because I really don't want newbies who look in here think that I endorse what they write.  I've left a couple of links to the blogs of staunch Anglo-Catholic bloggers, because not only do I consider them friends, they are both anything but idelogicial. 

I've added wyclif's blog, which somehow I've managed to miss all this time.

Then I've rearranged the order to have more Reformed and "Central" Church blogs listed first.  Their particular order there doesn't necessarily reflect my preferences from favorite to less favorite.  I've just sort of jumbled them up there in no particular order.  But if you find your blog in that section of the list, know that this is because I find myself mostly or wholly in agreement with you.

David Virtue Interviews Susan Howatch (Touchstone)

 I find Howatch to be a very interesting Anglican thinker, though I'm pretty sure I don't track with her 100%.  Her novels on the Church of England and Anglican parties/churchmanships are not to be missed. 

A Novelist Looks at Faith & Fiction

Ad Fontes

Fr. Robert Hart's Quip on TEC's PB

"We may summarize the problem very simply: She is on the side of the demons."

Pentecost!

Fr. Hart's sermon.

Hail Thee, Festival Day!

Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism c.1590-1640

I read this book, Nicholas Tyacke's doctoral dissertation published by Oxford University Press, some months ago.  Tyacke presents an interesting thesis.  Tonight I found a chapter-by-chapter summary of the book, which I post here for those who might be interested in reading it:

Abstract

This is a study of the rise of English Arminianism and the growing religious division in the Church of England during the decades before the Civil War of the 1640s. The widely accepted view has been that the rise of Puritanism was a major cause of the war; this book argues that it was Arminianism — suspect not only because it sought the overthrow of Calvinism but also because it was embraced by, and imposed by, an increasingly absolutist Charles I — which heightened the religious and political tensions of the period. Almost all English Protestants were members of the established Church. Consequently, what was a theological dispute about rival views of the Christian faith assumed wider significance as a struggle for control of that Church. When Arminianism triumphed, Puritan opposition to the established Church was rekindled. Politically, Charles and his advisers also feared the consequences of Calvinist predestinarian teaching as being incompatible with ‘civil government in the commonwealth’.

Introduction

This chapter introduces an story of the rise of English Arminianism and the growing religious division in the Church of England during the few decades which preceeded the Civil War in the 1640s. This view, which is widely accepted, has been that the rise of Puritanism was a significant cause of the war; this book argues that it was Arminianism — under suspicion partly because it sought the overthrow of Calvinism and also because it was acccepted by, and imposed by, an ever increasing absolutist Charles I — which heightened the religious and political tensions of the period. Almost all English Protestants were members of the established Church. As a result, what was a theological dispute about rival views of the Christian faith assumed greater significance as a struggle for control of that Church. When Arminianism succeeded, Puritan opposition to the established Church was reignited. Politically, Charles and his advisers also feared the consequences of Calvinist predestinarian teaching as being incompatible with ‘civil government in the commonwealth’.

1 The Hampton Court Conference and Arminianism avant la lettre

The Hampton Court conference was held in 1604 to discuss the status of the English Church and Arminianism along with a discussion on doctrine of predestination. At this conference Calvinism was discussed for the first time and it was also the last time when the predestinarian question was handled by the English religious leaders under the influences of the continental Arminian. The English hierarchy and the Puritans were the two authorized parties expected to discuss the state of the English Church at the conference after Puritan reformers failed to obtain new religious settlement from James. At the conference the Puritan stated that the Lambeth Articles needed to be added to the existing English confession of faith — the Thirty-nine Articles.

2 Cambridge University and Arminianism

In the early 1590s English Calvinism was very much in ascendant and much obvious at Cambridge University. At Cambridge a direct confrontation between Calvinism and anti-Calvinist sentiment erupted in 1595 during a university sermon delivered by William Barrett. Barrett decided to protest against a public lecture delivered by William Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity, ‘against the advocates of universal grace’, as his reply against the Cambridge Calvinists. As expected Barrett was asked to appear at the Cambridge Consistory Court and forced to recant, but Barrett then appealed to the Archbishop Whitgift. Some modern historians also have raised question against the Calvinism of the Lambeth Articles.

3 Oxford University and Arminianism

Cambridge and Oxford University followed Calvinism, but during 1590 there was a huge clash between Calvinism orthodoxy and emergent Arminianism at Oxford. The difference between these was explained on the basis of fact that anti-Calvinism was checked at Oxford around ten years previously. This differences were explained by Anthony Corro, who was an ex monk from San Isidro near Seville and taught at Oxford from 1579 to 1586. Corro published ‘Tableau de l'awre de dieu’ in 1569 and expressed his views on the three heads of the religion, namely: predestination, free will, and justification by faith alone. Corro also applied for and was refused an Oxford doctorate of divinity.

4 The British delegation to the Synod of Dort

The official British delegation at the Synod of Dort played a critical role in the rise of English Arminianism. This was an international Calvinist gathering, which condemned the doctrines of the Dutch Arminians in 1619 and catalysed the English religious thought in the early 17th century. Soon news of the Arminian controversy spread to Holland, at the Synod of Dort, and the controversy was discussed far and wide. As a result of this gathering, differences among English theologians were brought out in the open. After this gathering, suspension of judgement on the nature of the relationship between grace and free will became harder, and scholars directed their studies to resolve this problems.

5 Bishop Neile and the Durham House group

During the 1620s there was a transformation in the official Church of England teachings. Bishop Neile became an important element in the religious transition during this decade by establishing the system of Arminian patronage and protection. The role of John Hacket contrasted with role of Neile in terms of his theological seniors, which pleased all sides by their touching opinions about predestination and converting grace; they made no discrimination about which or which propugners should be gratified in their advancements. He went through more bishoprics than any of his contemporaries such as Rochester, Coventry, and Lichfield, Lincoln, Durham, Winchester, and York.

6 Richard Montagu, the House of Commons, and Arminianism

The debates over Calvinism and the Lambeth Articles were provoked by the anti-Calvinist writings of Richard Montagu in the 1620s. His opponents tried to link his writings and books with a conspiracy to topple the established teachings of the English Church. The parliamentary case against Montagu involved his two works published in 1624 and 1625 titled ‘A new gagg for an old goose’ and ‘Appello Caesarem’. Montagu also countered both local missionary activities and the latest Catholic apologetic. He also tried to defend himself from attacks by fellow Protestants who considered his writings to be against Arminian teachings.

7 The York House Conference

The House of Commons failed to prosecute Richard Montagu before the House of Lords. In 1624, the Commons referred the Montagu case to the Archbishop Abbot and forwarded a complaint against Bishop Harsnett of Norwich to the House of Lords. A conference was held in February 1626 under the chairmanship of Buckingham and the second session of this conference was attended by Montagu, at Buckingham's residence, York House in the Strand. The subject of this conference was the published view of Montagu and according to Buckingham the conference had been arranged at the request of the Earl of Warwick. The York House conference was designed to defeat the prosecution of Montagu by the House of Commons.

8 Arminianism during the Personal Rule and after

The rise of anti-Calvinist sentiment became considerable in terms of both power and number. During the reign of Charles, the King decided to go against those who claimed to be on God's side, by favouring a clerical group prepared to preach monarchical authority in defence of its beliefs. Laud and Neile now actively sought to enforce Charles's religious declaration of 1628 throughout the dioceses of England and Wales, which meant in effect the proscription of Calvinism. Having the royal support Laud and Neile were now free to implement their ideas. The consequences of the rise of Arminianism were serious for the contemporary Puritanism, as it altered the doctrinal basis of English Church membership.

Conclusion

Along with various other issues, religion played a major contributory role in the English Civil War. The religious fears voiced in the late 1620s were given increasing substance during the 1630s. The term Arminian is the least misleading among the terms which can be used to describe the religious change of this time. The term Arminian denotes a coherent body of anti-Calvinist religious thought, which was gaining ground in various regions of early 17th-century Europe. Calvinism was also attacked as being unreasonable. The rise of English Arminianism challenged the Calvinist world picture, which envisaged the forces of good and evil involved in a struggle that would only end with the final overthrow of the Antichrist.

Gaelic Psalms at Back Free Church, Isle of Lewis

Otherworldly.

Quotable Quote from Fr. Barber

I am very happy to have found and downloaded Fr. Philip Barber's doctoral dissertation before it disappeared from the web.  It has turned out to be quite the read, and I plan to use various sections of it for future blog entries.  But this one stands out to me today.  With reference to all the classical Anglicans whom the Anglo-Catholics in the ACC and the Continuum hope to purge from the Continuum's ranks,

. . . if these other Anglicans, who in fact represent something closer to normative Anglicanism, are expelled from the ACC or the Continuing Church at large, then all that is left is a pathetic rump recognized by neither Catholics nor Orthodox nor Anglicans nor Protestants. This is not even in “Catholics’” best interests. The only option left is to become an uneasy satellite or auxiliary of the Roman Catholic Church or some smaller body with “Catholic” pretensions like those of the ACC.

Because someone of the stature of Fr. Barber was thinking in such terms several years before I was, I know that my recent similar conclusion probably has merit.  I have argued here that this is more or less what I see happening to the ACC down the road if they do not relent from their quest to destroy Anglican comprehensiveness in the interest of "keeping things tidy."  Do the Anglo-Catholics, having finally gotten "the church we want",  really want to exist as a small, and likely dying, "pathetic rump"?

Fr. Anthony Chadwick on Participation by Grace in the Life of God

I preface my remarks here by referring readers to my 5/14 update re: Fr. Chadwick.  Having read that, now read this, posted at Fr. Anthony's blog on 5/13:

I have always had the idea that comprehensiveness would be easier from a Catholic basis (conciliar ecclesiology, not Papal) rather than the Protestant basis that destroys the Platonic metaphysics forming the basis of the possibility of redeemed man to participate by grace in the life of God. In the Reformed type of thinking, God reveals himself to man only through the written Word of the Bible, nothing else.

Fascinating.  But not unheard of in the Anglo-Catholic world.  Push the envelope just a little here, however, and we end up with the Cambridge Platonists and then the likes of Dean Inge.  Push that envelope just a little and we fall off the Christian map altogether.  I find A.G. Dickens instructive here.  Referring in his book The English Reformation to medieval English religious manuscripts showing just how radically the Christianity of the time had veered from the apostolic faith,  he writes:

Manuscripts like these two are far from embracing the whole gamut of English devotional life on the eve of the Reformation. They nevertheless exemplify many important elements of the popular and conventional religion – its effort to attain salvation through devout observances, its fantastic emphasis on saints, relics and pilgrimages, its tendency to allow the personality and teaching of Jesus to recede from the focus of the picture. That the connection of such writings with the Christianity of the Gospel is rather tenuous could be demonstrated with almost mathematical precision. The point is reinforced by the testimony of Catholic reformers like Colet, More and Erasmus, for Catholicism as it then existed amongst real men and women was far from homogeneous. People who can sing the same creed together are not necessarily practising the same religion. There lay all the difference in the world between Thomas More and the friar whom More found at Coventry superstitiously preaching that a sinner could escape damnation by the simple expedient of saying the rosary every day. (pp. 4 – 5)

What Dickens says here of people singing the same creed but practicing different religions has application to what he writes a few pages later about mysticism (bolded emphasis mine): 

Our reflections upon the orthodox religion have omitted at least one ingredient of much significance and interest – that deepening of the spiritual life in the latter Middle Ages usually known as the devotio moderna. Though throughout Europe this movement tended to assume the form of a quiet pietism among lay people and secular clergymen, it derived from, and existed alongside, the more austere and exalted mysticism still prevalent within a small elite of the monastic orders. Its chief problem concerned the adaptation of these claustral techniques to life as lived in the rough world. Granting that the higher states of prayer remained difficult of attainment, even for cloistered contemplatives, the writers in the devotio tradition claimed that at least the lower steps of the spiritual ladder might, by the use of well-tried exercises, be ascended by men and women obliged to continue in the active life. At all its levels the new devotion aimed at a direct and personal sense of the presence of God. In general, such states of prayer were recognized to involve fleeting contacts with the Divine, though a few specially favoured practitioners might achieve long periods of union, sometimes expressed by the term ‘mystic marriage.’ Broadly speaking – and simplifying some far from uniform schemes of thought – three major phases of this spiritual journey were envisaged: the purgative way, pursued by means of self-mortification and good works; the illuminative way, a progressive series of ‘experiences’, often interrupted by periods of dryness and desolation; and the unitive way, begun by advanced contemplatives in this life, yet even by them completed only in the world to come.

From the viewpoint of the Church, the claims of mysticism have always presented problems. Many of its phenomena are not confined to Christians, since analogous techniques and states appear in the literature of Platonism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism and Islam. Moreover in many instances, some of them Christian, a dangerous trend toward pantheism can be detected. This was especially true of the Neo-Platonist mysticism, to which the Christian school nevertheless owed profound debts. The notion that God is the whole of Being, that all things have their existence in God, naturally attracted some mystics since it expressed their awareness of absorption into the Divine Being. . . . Such tendencies often compelled institutional Christianity, both medieval and modern, to view the contemplative approach with caution. The timid saying, that mysticism begins with mist and ends in schism, enshrines a measure of ecclesiastical wisdom. (pp.14-15)

However, Fr. Chadwick wonders aloud how union with God can happen if Platonic metaphysics be not true, and in the same breath he condemns (yawn - again) "the Reformed type of thinking", according to which "God reveals himself to man only through the written Word of the Bible, nothing else."  Well, his argument is not so much with "the Reformed type of thinking" as it is with the apostolic authors themselves.  Take St. Peter (bolded emphases mine):

Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord,  as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,  by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge,  to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love.  For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.   For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.

Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble;  for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

For this reason I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth. Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you,  knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.  Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease.

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.  For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”  And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (II Peter 1: 2-19)

Now, this narrative reflects the pattern that is seen all throughout the New Testament: there is a word, a message, and it is confirmed by the Holy Spirit with power, both objectively in signs and wonders and subjectively as it miraculously "takes" in the hearts of men and effects their union with God.  Not only is there no explicit mention whatsover in the Bible about Platonic metaphysics or its need for participation by grace on the life of God, there is nothing whatsoever in Holy Writ from which even an inference to that effect can be made.  What's more, the means of grace in the New Testament are Word -- then Sacrament -- in that order.  Chadwick can call all this "Reformed" until he's blue in the face.  We name it for what it actually is: apostolic.  And if apostolic, then truly Catholic.  Union with Christ (and hence with God) if effected by divinely-implanted faith, by the power of the Holy Spirit, resulting in justification, the initiatory sacrament of which is baptism.  Our participation in the life of God is further manifested in the sacrament of the Eucharist. 

The Platonic mystic, however, introduces a late and foreign way to union with God.  Dickens saw Christian mysticism's inherent dangers, and if memory serves it was either Jaroslav Pelikan or John Meyendorff, writing in the Orthodox context, who also spoke of its inherent dangers.   Better to stick with Peter and Paul, rather than Plato or Plotinus.  Even if that means agreeing with John Calvin.

TEC's Presiding Bishopette Claims Paul Was Wrong to Cast Out Slave Girl's Demon

Presiding bishop preaches in Curaçao, Diocese of Venezuela

Human beings have a long history of discounting and devaluing difference, finding it offensive or even evil. That kind of blindness is what leads to oppression, slavery, and often, war. Yet there remains a holier impulse in human life toward freedom, dignity, and the full flourishing of those who have been kept apart or on the margins of human communities. It’s a tendency that seems to emerge along a common timeline. Formal legal structures that permitted human slavery ended here and in many parts of the world within a relatively short span of time. It doesn’t mean that slavery is finished today, but at least it’s no longer legal in most places. Even so, slavery continues in the form of human trafficking and the kind of exploitation that killed so many garment workers in Bangladesh recently.

We live with the continuing tension between holier impulses that encourage us to see the image of God in all human beings and the reality that some of us choose not to see that glimpse of the divine, and instead use other people as means to an end. We’re seeing something similar right now in the changing attitudes and laws about same-sex relationships, as many people come to recognize that different is not the same thing as wrong. For many people, it can be difficult to see God at work in the world around us, particularly if God is doing something unexpected.

There are some remarkable examples of that kind of blindness in the readings we heard this morning, and slavery is wrapped up in a lot of it. Paul is annoyed at the slave girl who keeps pursuing him, telling the world that he and his companions are slaves of God. She is quite right. She’s telling the same truth Paul and others claim for themselves.[1] But Paul is annoyed, perhaps for being put in his place, and he responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness. Paul can’t abide something he won’t see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it. It gets him thrown in prison. That’s pretty much where he’s put himself by his own refusal to recognize that she, too, shares in God’s nature, just as much as he does – maybe more so! The amazing thing is that during that long night in jail he remembers that he might find God there – so he and his cellmates spend the night praying and singing hymns.

No further comment necessary.

Never

News From the Synod of the Diocese of the Holy Trinity (ACC)

"Father (Stephen) Scarlett elected bishop on first ballot today in Newport Beach, CA."  (Abp. Mark Haverland, from his Facebook page.)

This is good news, I think, though not unexpected.  The Diocese of the Holy Trinity has been without a bishop ordinary for quite some time, and I can't think of anyone better than Fr. Scarlett to fill that vacancy.  He is an innovative and far-seeing clergyman, and St. Matthew's Newport Beach may become something of a flagship for the Anglican Catholic Church.

However, I wish I had a sense for what role Scarlett will play in the struggle between Anglo-Catholic and Classical Anglican factions in the ACC.   I simply don't know where he stands on the matter, though last year when I attended the diocesan synod there I did hear him speak somewhat critically of the Tractarian and Ritualist movements.  The clergy out there at St. Matt's are a rather manly bunch, and the liturgy there is not an Anglo-Catholic Missal liturgy but what I'd call "high BCP."  The shelves of St. Matt's bookstore offer works about and by Protestant Reformers.  That being said, I haven't been able to get a clear sense from the clergy I know in that parish where they stand in this struggle.  Their agenda seems to be quite different.  And maybe that is a good thing, I don't know.  One thing I do know, they're attracting a goodly number of people from some of the Evangelical institutions of higher learning in the area (e.g., Biola), and it's a safe bet that not too many of these kids are going to be readily drawn into Anglo-Catholicism.  As I have argued here and elsewhere, there are far more Evangelicals who are simply interested in liturgical worship and in some sense of historicity than there are who desire to be Catholics, whether Roman, Orthodox or "Anglo".  And that is precisely why Classical Anglicansm, as opposed to Anglo-Catholicism, is going to attract more of them.

Gifts and Creatures: The Reformation Doctrine of the Eucharistic Presence Exhibited in the Anglican Liturgy of the Lord's Supper

Some time ago, I posted a link to this doctoral dissertation (2006) of Philip E. Barber III, an Anglican priest who left the Anglican Catholic Church for much the same reasons I did.  Sometime between the time I posted it and now, the paper was removed from the site.  Fortunately, I downloaded a copy of the pdf at the time, so I can now offer it here at OJC:

Gifts and Creatures: The Reformation Doctrine of the Eucharistic Presence Exhibited in the Anglican Liturgy of the Lord's Supper

The paper is a searing indictment not just of the medieval Catholic doctrine of ex opere operato, defended on the ACC's web site here, but of Anglo-Catholicism in general and the ACC in particular for their wholesale rejection of the English Reformation.  This is a must read for classical/Evangelical Anglicans, especially those in the Continuum who find themselves being run over in a roughshod fashion by the Anglo-Catholic juggernaut.  Barber defends another view of the sacrament, that of "dynamic symbolism", which he argues is the historic Anglican view, as opposed to the medieval view embraced by the Oxford Movement and subsequest generations of Anglo-Catholics.  Here they will see the stark differences laid out between Classical Anglicanism and the 19th-century Anglo-Catholic interloper.

The Abstract:

Anglo-Catholics, and specifically those in the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), a Continuing or Traditionalist Anglican Church, have asserted that the only legitimate doctrine of the Eucharistic Presence is a “realistic” one. A Biblically, historically, and doctrinally sensitive examination, however, of Anglican formularies (the Articles of Religion, the Ordinal, and the Book of Common Prayer–representing the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Anglican Church) demonstrates that they do not teach this doctrine, that the Formularies were written purposely to exclude medieval “realistic” interpretations of the Presence, that the authentic Anglican doctrine of the Presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper is one of “dynamic symbolism,” and that a “realistic” doctrine of Eucharist is a 19th century innovation and importation into the Anglican Church. The Anglo-Catholic adoption of “Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament” is used as a test case, criticized, and found severely wanting. A positive appreciation and evaluation of the classic Anglican doctrine (following Ridley, Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, Jeremy Taylor, Cosin, the Nonjurors, and the Wesleys) and its attendant spirituality is given. The baleful effects of an overly “realistic” view of the Sacrament as adopted by Anglo-Catholics are traced in the pseudo-historical apologetics of the ACC; its infelicitous effects on the ACC’s relations to other Continuing Anglican churches and to other non-Roman Catholic groups are examined. A conscious re-dedication of the ACC to its Reformation heritage and doctrines is necessary, and a new dedication to bettering pan-Anglican and ecumenical relationships is required.

Table of Contents:

Preface 4

The Argument 13

Introduction: What do the proposed canons say? 18

I. Ten theses concerning the two proposed canons and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament 24

II. What Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is not 33

III. Theological objections to Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament 47

IV. “Realism” vs. “Dynamic symbolism” in the Eucharist 61

V. What is (wrong with) transubstantiation? Saint Thomas Aquinas vs. Thomas Cranmer 83

VI. The authentic Anglican doctrine of the Eucharist and of Jesus’ presence 111

VII. “But isn’t this Receptionism?” 121

Excursus on Eucharistic “Naive Realism”  136-143

VIII. Anglican eucharistic doctrine and liturgy since the Reformation 148

Excursus on the Epiklesis 152-156

IX. Romanticizing Medievalism, and other Anglo-Catholic myths 164

X. Status of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion 196

Excursus on the Marian Doctrines  205-217

XI. Status of the General Councils, and of (Western) Canon Law 219

XII. Where do we go from here? 235

XIII. Ten conclusions and ten suggestions 257

Epilogue 268

Ten Conclusions and Ten Suggestions (near the end of the dissertation):

We conclude finally that:

First of all, “Catholics’” doctrine of the Real Presence (or as we have more pejoratively dubbed it, extreme or “naive” realism) is neither in the Book of Common Prayer nor the Articles of Religion, nor in any other authoritative Anglican pronouncement, except to the extent that the Windsor Statement has palpably moved in a more “realist” direction. The official doctrine of the Church of England, however, remains that of the 39 Articles, the Catechism, and the Communion Service itself.   

Secondly, the Windsor Statement, however, gives short shrift to the standard Anglican (and Reformed) doctrine (embodied in Article XXIX) that the “wicked do not partake of the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper.” The Windsor Statement is admittedly a far more balanced position, theologically, historically, and ecumenically, than anything that ever comes out of Traditional Anglicanism, but it does downplay this important and historic Anglican assertion. The controversy still swirls about whether there is an “ontological” (usually defined in terms of “substance”) Presence of Christ in  the eucharistic elements or whether the Gift of the salvific and Self-communicating Presence of Christ is only apprehended and received by faith and the celebrating eucharistic community (though not posited by or conjured up by subjective dispositions of the communicant). Classical Anglicanism asserts that the Gift comes only through Christ’s Word of Promise and institution attached to the elements and action of the Sacrament.    

Thirdly, the Book of Common Prayer from 1549 on (as demonstrated in Cranmer’s 1550 Defence) and the Articles of Religion, the normative formularies of Anglicanism, were expressly written to exclude precisely those doctrines which obtained in the late Middle Ages and which “Catholics” now again triumphantly (and quite triumphalistically) assert.   

Fourthly, it is absurd historically and indefensible theologically for “Catholics” to assert that only “realist” interpretations of the eucharistic Presence in a “corporal” or “natural” sense are acceptable and to reject, disallow, or delegitimize interpretations of a “dynamic symbolist” sort, inasmuch as the latter are the standard, historic, and traditional Anglican position.   

Fifthly, to do what “Catholics” want is simply to exalt to normative status the position of a party which came into existence in the train of the Oxford Movement, and to un-church every other form of Anglicanism, or Reformation-based Evangelical belief, including that of the earliest Reformers and Apologists of the C of E, as well as of the Caroline Divines and Restoration and Nonjuror thinkers, and of other faithful Anglican believers.   

Sixthly, it is manifestly absurd to bring forth an apologetics for the Anglican Catholic Church or Traditional Anglicanism which simply jettisons three or four centuries of Anglican eucharistic faith and practice. It would then be impossible to maintain, except by way of a pious fraud, the validity of Anglican Orders and Apostolic Succession, on which “Catholics” depend as much as other Anglicans, if there were such a hiatus of legitimate eucharistic doctrine.   

Seventhly, Newman, converts from Anglo-Catholicism to Roman Catholicism, “Anglican-Use” Catholics and “Western-Rite” Orthodox have rightly seen through this scam.   

Eighthly, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament is a late 19th or early 20th century exotic importation into Anglicanism, in imitation of Counter-Reformation, very aggressively anti-Protestant practices. It is used by “Catholics” as a signature practice to show just how un-Protestant they are. It is manifestly unfair thus to delegitimize other Anglicans proud of their Reformation and Evangelical heritage.   

Ninthly, if these other Anglicans, who in fact represent something closer to normative Anglicanism, are expelled from the ACC or the Continuing Church at large, then all that is left is a pathetic rump recognized by neither Catholics nor Orthodox nor Anglicans nor Protestants. This is not even in “Catholics’” best interests. The only option left is to become an uneasy satellite or auxiliary of the Roman Catholic Church or some smaller body with “Catholic” pretensions like those of the ACC.   

Tenthly, Traditional Anglicans’ future lies first of all in resolutely proclaiming the Gospel of free grace and justification through faith in Christ alone according to the doctrines of the Scriptures, the Creeds, the Councils, and the Fathers, and to the truths of the English Reformation and Restoration.  Next, however, Continuing Anglicanism needs (1.) To get its own Pan-Anglican act together as a Confessional body, form a Continuing Church Consultation Group to help all Continuing Anglicans talk to each other, provide a united front as an alternative to those portions of official Anglicanism now in free fall, serve as a point of contact for further ecumenical discussions, act as an ecclesiastical endorsing agency for military and hospital chaplains and the like, etc. (2.) Continuing Anglicans need to show an openness to Confessional Protestantism and a willingness to make common cause with Evangelical resistance to the corrosive acids of the older ecumenism and theological liberalism and secular humanism in the mainline churches and in American society at large. This cannot be done if we relish only the guise of a “Catholic” sect or even a “Branch” co-equal with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, a ploy which fools nobody.   

And ten final suggestions or recommendations:   

1. The ACC should re-affirm that in doctrinal matters the Word of God written is authoritative and normative (norma normans), and declare that the Reformation and Restoration Book of Common Prayer tradition (principally the 1549 BCP in a place of historical honor, the 1662 English BCP, the English Proposed Book of Common Prayer of 1928, --which contains the 1662 Book virtually in its entirety--, and certainly the 1928 American BCP with its Nonjuror-influenced Prayer of Consecration) is derivatively doctrinally and liturgically normative (norma normata). The ACC is a Continuing Anglican Church and is dedicated to preserving a Biblically faithful Book of Common Prayer. Our present official and semi-official brochures and public offerings should also be accordingly revised or dropped where not in conformity with the above.   

2. The “Missals” and other “devotional manuals” should be permissible and tolerable only on a local option basis, but they are not to be used to determine ACC doctrine or liturgical practice where they differ from the Book of Common Prayer. They are as the Apocrypha is to the Scriptures. They are merely liturgical supplements and enrichments and allowable variations. They are not to be understood as official doctrinal additions or expansions. They are an unfortunate liturgical dead-end and a failed development and a historical curiosity appealing to nobody but the usual suspects of extreme Anglo- Catholics and the users of the Orthodox Missal (1995) of the Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America. (Of course, this latter is also a very curious document, and the Vicariate itself does not even have its own bishop, and doubtless never will, as one can hardly imagine that the American Antiochian Christian Orthodox, who have not yet even achieved autonomy of their own from the Old World, would ever trust their tame Franks with a bishop of their own!)   

3. The Ordo Kalendar is to be published with the imprimatur of the Metropolitan, and its basis is to be the 1928 BCP Calendar and that of the 1963 Lesser Feasts and Fasts already approved by the Bishops for use in the ACC, rather than the calendars in the Missals, which are too dependent on English recusant calendar models. Certain N.T. worthies and events (St. Mary the Virgin herself, St. Joseph, St. Mary Magdalene, St. James of Jerusalem, Ss. Timothy and Titus, the Visitation, Cornelius the Centurion, Mary and Martha of Bethany, Joseph of Arithmathaea, and Philip, Deacon and Evangelist), all inexplicably ignored by Cranmer and Church of England liturgical observance thereafter, could now be duly celebrated with Collect, Epistle, and Gospel. (The collects in Lesser Feasts and Fasts, incidentally, are not those of the Missals and do not invoke the merits of the respective saints as intercessors or patrons. They are thus compatible with theology of Prayer Book and the Articles, as many of those in the Missals are not.) Also, many saints of the early Church, East and West, also in Lesser Feasts and Fasts, could be observed in weekday Eucharists or commemorated on Sundays. Both medieval saints (with a concentration on Celtic and English saints) and Reformation worthies (specifically including Wyclif and Huss, Tyndale, Frith, and Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley) and later Anglican figures should be commemorated. Recognition of people such as John Fisher and Thomas More should be kept only as a matter of reparation. The excessive number of Counter-Reformation saints and festivals is to be discarded or drastically pared. Perhaps “English Saints and Martyrs of the Reformation Era” could be commemorated together as in Common Worship. There should also be liturgical recognition of the broader Christian and the ecumenical scene. It is absurd not to recognize Martin Luther (or, for that matter, Bucer–who even died in the Church of England! --or Melanchthon or Bullinger or Calvin, all of whom clearly influenced the Church of England) or Dietrich Bonhoeffer while celebrating Ignatius of Loyola or John of the Cross or Therese of Lisieux. While the last three saints might meaningfully be recognized in an ecumenically-minded Anglican calendar, surely John Henry Newman ought also to be, especially if Pusey and Keble have commemorations. Post-1054 Eastern saints also need recognition. Feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary should be kept down to observances of Biblical events, though there should be at least one feast devoted to the BVM herself that is not also primarily a feast of our Lord. (August 15 and September 8 and December 8 come to mind, though the Roman and Orthodox titles of these days are unacceptable.) The new calendar of the Church of England Common Worship would be a helpful and suggestive guide for revision of the calendar, or that in A Manual of Anglo-Catholic Devotion (2001) if a still fuller calendar is desired. Care should be taken, however, that the number of saints’ commemorations and Red Letter Days do not supplant or overwhelm the course readings of daily lectionaries for Morning and Evening Prayer. The ACC and other Continuing Churches should prayerfully consider using something like a two-year lectionary for the Offices and the three-year Common Lectionary, so that there may be an enriched variety of readings from the Holy Scriptures. Conservative modern translations such the Revised Standard Version, the New King James Version, the English Standard Version, and the Third Millennium Bible should be authorized for reading at the Eucharist and in the Offices. It is probably time to give up the notion that everything necessary for the Eucharist, the Offices and Psalms, and the Pastoral offices can all be confined within two covers in one book. It would also be a good thing if more Anglican parishes developed the custom of having Bibles in the pews so that congregants could follow the lessons.   

4. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament may be allowed strictly on a local option basis if the local congregation and priest request it, and the bishop licenses it. (See the Amer. BCP, pg. vii.) More extensive reading of the Scriptures and preaching are to be required in the context of, say, Evensong. Communion from the reserved Sacrament in both kinds ought always to be available upon confession and absolution.   

5. Interested parties are requested to draw up a definitive list of all Book of Common Prayer doctrines, services, practices, phrases, or words which they find unacceptable in their obvious and plain meaning and want proscribed or changed. Interested parties are also requested to draw up a definitive and finite list of Catholic practices and doctrines in the “Sacred Tradition” (however defined) (not a term normally used in Anglican theology but dredged up in imitation of Tridentine doctrine by the committee that recommended these defeated proposed canons) and not in the Book of Common Prayer which they want preserved, established, and adopted by the ACC as a whole. A similar process ought to be undertaken with respect to precisely which medieval councils and canons are recognized (by “Catholics,” at least) as authoritative and binding. Appropriate texts ought to be pointed out, made available, or even gathered up if necessary, for perusal by provincial, diocesan, and parish officials and councils. Such a process would stop, or at least discourage, ecclesiastical gamesmanship in the matter of canon law and the ACC’s relation to it. All of the above, of course, are intended as heuristic exercises and as devices for exposing just how much of Anglicanism “Catholics” reject and what is their hidden agenda and program for the future of the ACC. The results should be most edifying, especially when our laymen and vestries discover just what is actually intended by our “Catholic” friends.   

6. A “grandfather clause” must be in effect protecting all Reformation and Anglican views held in the Book of Common Prayer and its Articles of Religion; no members holding such views etc. may be liable to penalty or disability in the ACC in perpetuity, for so doing. In particular, of course, those holding the Book of Common Prayer’s doctrine of the spiritual presence of Christ as the Messianic Host and Food at his Banquet and Supper and in real Communion with him for those who receive him in faith and penitence (rather than a purported “Real Presence” interpreted in a quasi-material fashion or as transubstantiation or consubstantiation) must be protected. The basic Anglican doctrine of the Eucharist, as expounded in this paper, is a foundation to be built upon, not something to be torn down or jettisoned. There must be no exclusion of communicants for believing about the Eucharist what the Anglican Reformers did and which the plain sense of the Prayer Book, its Catechism, and the Articles of Religion teach.   

7. A committee should be set up to put forth an ACC- or Province-wide Book of Common Prayer, using traditional English and revised along conservative lines, to be approved and then used by all ACC churches as their liturgical and doctrinal standard. Other Continuing Anglican Churches may be invited into this project with the hope of bringing forth a pan-Continuing Anglican Book of Common Prayer to further unity and to serve as a common ground in ecumenical contacts and dialogue. Non-Anglican traditional orthodox or Confessing Protestants and “post-Anglican” Churches like the Charismatic Episcopal Church could be invited as observers with voice but not vote. We should then get this printed up and distributed to our parishes as quickly as possible. We should not ban the use of the 1928 and 1962 Books of Common Prayer where desired by the congregation, even after the new Book of Common Prayer is approved.   

8. As an interim matter, the use of a genuinely consecratory Invocation, such as that from Laud’s Liturgy of 1637 (itself derived from 1549), or of the Invocation in Seabury’s (Scottish derived) Communion Service, or that of the 1928 English Proposed Book of Common Prayer or Scottish 1928 Book of Common Prayer, may be used instead of that in the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer. And the Catechism question and answer concerning what is signified by the Bread and Wine in the Lord’s Supper should be as in the English 1662/1928 versions. The prayer, “Hear us, O merciful Father, and grant that we, receiving these thy [gifts and] creatures of Bread and Wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood,” should be detached from the Invocation and restored to its original place (1552) immediately before the Words of Institution, for its wording expresses essential Anglican eucharistic doctrine and should therefore be retained.   

9. The Articles of Religion in their 1571 version are to be retained in the new Book of Common Prayer as an “historic formulary” for reference to the authentic 16th century Anglican expression of the Catholic faith. One should insist upon the continuing value of the Articles for Christian faith without demanding subscription to them. The Articles and other examples of classical Anglican doctrine should be taught in a positive fashion in Holyrood or its successor and to those reading for Orders.   

10. A new Statement of Faith, comprehensive in scope and irenic in tone (unlike this polemic), should first be drawn up and used as the basis for the Catechism in the new ACC Book of Common Prayer. This Statement shall be included in the new Book of Common Prayer and serve as the authoritative basis, subject to the Scriptures, for ecumenical contacts and discussions. A new Book of Homilies and Church Year Sermons could also be compiled for use by lay readers and catechists, but also as a less formal reference for the belief of the ACC. The corpus of Archbishop Cahoon’s sermons could be the core of such a work, but a work featuring sermons for days of the Christian year or on various appropriate doctrines could be collected from other bishops and priests of the ACC. Account should also be taken of ongoing ecumenical ventures in doctrinal and liturgical clarification and convergence. In particular, ARCIC Reports, BEM, the Lima Liturgy, the Leuenberg Agreement and the Porvoo Agreement should be investigated by a pan- Continuing Anglican doctrinal and liturgical commission charged with drawing up such a new Statement of Faith and where possible received by the ACC and other Continuing Churches. We need to do a great deal of catching up and learning not to judge other Churches simply by our own narrow and frequently out-dated and ill-informed preconceptions.   

There is much serious work to be done. Let us move on from the detour, or the impasse, of these defeated canons and of the continuing attempts of some to “Catholicize” the ACC. by bringing in strange teachings and by canonizing an overly-realistic and basically non-Anglican doctrine of the eucharistic Presence. The Bible and the Prayer Book are sufficient for our faith.  

Happy reading.

Scene From Luther (2003): The Pauline-Augustinian Trajectory

An example of what set the Reformation against the legalism of medieval Roman and Orthodox Catholicism.  The Reformation's trajectory, then and now, is simply part of the Pauline-Augustinian trajectory I've written about in several entries here at OJC.  Today in the Anglican world it is likewise the English Reformation's trajectory of grace that stands in stark contrast to the legalism (and sacramental mechanics) of the Anglo-Catholics, who more or less seek to ape the medieval mentality against which much of the Reformational emphasis on grace was directed:

On the Pauline-Augustinian trajectory.

McGrath on Anglo-Catholic Revisionism

In a remarkable article in the London-based Church Times (13th April), Canon Gregory Cameron, the Deputy Secretary-General of the Anglican Communion, publicly distanced Anglicanism from Protestantism. Canon Cameron spoke of an Anglican "dialogue with the Protestant traditions," making it clear that he regarded Anglicanism as lying beyond the pale of Protestantism. Many in Ireland will regard his views with puzzlement, and perhaps not a little concern. So will many historians.

We need to appreciate that the sixteenth-century Reformation was a complex phenomenon. There was no single Protestant ‘template’. Rather, a variety of reforming movements emerged during the sixteenth century, whose specific forms were shaped by local politics and personalities, as much as by the broader commitment to a recognizably Protestant agenda. The forms of Protestantism which emerged in the great imperial cities (such as Strasbourg), territories (such as Saxony) and nations (such as England or Sweden) had their own distinct characteristics. Some, for example, retained the episcopacy and a fixed liturgy; others discarded one or both. Yet each represented a local implementation of the Protestant agenda.

Historians generally consider that one of the most remarkable and influential forms of Protestantism emerged in England, and has come to be known as ‘Anglicanism’. Reformers in the reign of Henry VIII did not refer to themselves as ‘Protestants’, partly because this was seen to have foreign associations at the time. (Henry VIII, it will be recalled, disliked foreigners having influence over English affairs.) Yet from the reign of Edward VI onwards, English Church leaders began to use this term to refer to themselves, and see themselves as being connected with the great reforming movements and individuals on the continent of Europe.

Of course, many Anglican writers sympathetic to the nineteenth-century High Church ‘Oxford Movement’ (often known as ‘Tractarianism’) were generally dismissive of any suggestion that Anglicanism could be considered ‘Protestant’. After all, they argued, their ‘Anglo-Catholicism’ could be traced back to developments in the early seventeenth century. They pointed to a group of writers during the reigns of James I and Charles I who, they argued, show a much more ‘catholic’ outlook than their colleagues in the reigns of Edward VI or Elizabeth I. Anglicanism was never Protestant; it retained its Catholic identity and resisted any temptations to become part of the Protestant movement.

Historians now regard this account of Anglicanism as an unfortunate aberration. It is certainly true that some significant members of the Church of England during the reigns of James I and Charles I laid greater emphasis on its sacramental life than some of their contemporaries. Some also showed themselves to be critical (at points) of the first generation of Protestant leaders in the English Reformation. Under Charles I, this group began to gain the ascendancy, with William Laud (1573- 1645) becoming Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Neile (1562-1640) Archbishop of York.

Yet such figures cannot be thought of as ‘Catholics’, nor can their Protestant identity be denied, for that reason. In the first place, they were generally affirmative of their Protestant credentials. In the second, their sacramental and ecclesiological views can easily be accommodated within the spectrum of Protestant possibilities. Protestantism is a ‘big tent’ movement, offering a surprising variety of possibilities within its vision of Christian thought and life. Luther, it must be remembered, had a much ‘higher’ view of baptism and the eucharist than Zwingli – a fact which is reflected in modern Lutheranism at this point. Yet nobody has seriously suggested that Lutheranism is not a form of Protestantism on account of these sacramental views.

Some point to Charles I as the classic representative of this ‘Anglo-Catholicism’. Yet they too easily overlook the awkward fact that, on the evening before his execution, Charles told his thirteen-yearold daughter, Elizabeth, that he was to die for "maintaining the true Protestant religion", and urged her to read the works of Lancelot Andrewes and Richard Hooker "to ground [her] against Popery". Others suggest that Anglicanism is a ‘middle way’ (via media) between Protestantism and Catholicism. For that reason, it is argued, it is neither Protestant nor Catholic, but combines the strengths of both. Yet historians such as Diarmaid McCulloch have rightly pointed out that the ‘middle way’ developed in England in the late sixteenth century was between Lutheranism and Calvinism – two quite distinct versions of Protestantism. The ‘middle way’ which resulted was neither Calvinist nor Lutheran – but it was certainly Protestant.

From an historical perspective, the English national Church must be regarded as a Protestant variant - the ‘Protestant Episcopal Church of England and Ireland’, as state and parliamentary documents regularly describe it. And, as many readers will recall, the body which now prefers to describe itself as ‘The Episcopal Church’ was originally entitled ‘The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.’ (Indeed, this remains the Church’s legal title).

Canon Cameron appears to belong to the revisionist school of thought which is trying to airbrush out Anglicanism’s Protestant heritage and tradition. (The same agenda can be seen in the 1977 decision of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America to drop the word ‘Protestant’ from its name in common usage.) It is an unwise strategy for two reasons. First, it is historically indefensible. Cameron may wish that Anglicanism was not Protestant; he cannot, however, rewrite history to suit his tastes. His form of revisionism has itself been revised, and found to be untenable.

Read the entire article here.

The Conciliar Anglican (Fr. Jonathan) on The Rise of Parties

Update 5/14: Having carefully read Fr. Chadwick's two posts (three if you count this one) on yours truly, the Embryo Parson, I have concluded there's really no point in posting a detailed response after all.  This for three reasons: 1) the essence of Fr. Chadwick's assessment is that I am a) a "fanatic"; and b) a "Calvinist" with latent iconoclastic tendencies.   Interestingly, he admits he's never read Calvin, and in this very illuminating post he is taken to task by a couple of his own followers, including William Tighe, over the historical inaccuracies and errant judgments he sets forth in the post regarding the Reformer.  It would appear, contrary to his assertion, that he's not read this blog either, otherwise he'd have concluded that I call myself an Augustinian, not a Calvinist, and that I'm the furthest thing from an iconoclast.  Chadwick's response amounts to nothing more than name-calling, and name-calling is not an argument.  It is impossible to rebut a non-argument, other than to identify it as such.  So, I'll simply leave it to objective readers to peruse this blog and determine for themselves if Fr. Chadwick's assessment is anywhere close to being accurate; 2) a detailed response, however invigorating it might be to write it, would only serve to generate more heat than light.  I am more concerned about shedding light on Anglo-Catholic revisionism for the interested than I am in heated pissing contents with the uninterested; 3) at the end of the day, all I really care about is living the Gospel according to the Anglican Way.  More often than not that will mean avoiding strife with other Christians when it is possible to do so.  It is not always possible to do so, of course, but it is possible in this particular instance. 

Update 5/6: I see tonight that Fr. Chadwick has commented on this post.  I will address his comments when I have a big enough block of time to do so in depth.

____________________________________________________

Fight For Your Right to Parties

A salient part of the article:

Anglo-Catholicism and Evangelicalism both began as reform movements aimed at bringing Anglicans back to their roots. This is easily forgotten today, as both movements have become more concerned with aping their corollaries in the wider Christian world than with celebrating Anglican distinctiveness. Nevertheless, the early Evangelical movement in Anglicanism was deeply concerned with communicating the Gospel by means of both impassioned preaching and liturgy. The great Evangelical Charles Simeon wrote gushingly of his love for the prayer book and his belief that “a congregation uniting fervently in the prayers of our Liturgy would afford as complete a picture of heaven as ever yet was beheld on earth.” He distrusted Evangelical efforts that were not grounded in the prayer book. He also joined his fellow Evangelical John Wesley in having a special devotion to Holy Communion, something that had fallen out of fashion in the latter half of the eighteenth century.

In the beginning, the Anglo-Catholic movement was equally imbued with the spirit of the Elizabethan Settlement. There is a fierce desire apparent in the early Tracts for the Times to associate the Church of England not only with its pre-Reformation past but also with the great lights of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Much of what is available from the reformers and divines today was re-published and circulated by early Anglo-Catholics, from the commentaries and sermons of William Beveridge to Richard Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Moreover, the early movement was deeply concerned with maintaining the prayer book as the standard for doctrine and faith. Early Anglo-Catholics objected to schemes that would allow for non-subscription to the 39 Articles by those obtaining university posts. Even Tract 90, which was admittedly an effort to find ways around uncomfortable parts of the Articles, was nevertheless an indication of how committed the Oxford Fathers were to explicating the Catholic character that they believed Anglicanism has always had.

The point is, both Evangelicalism and Anglo-Catholicism can legitimately claim a stream of continuity with classical Anglicanism. Moreover, both parties, as reform movements, are able and fitted to make sure that modern Anglicans do not lose an important part of our theological heritage. Evangelicals are well poised to remind us of the ultimate authority of Scripture within the Church, the all sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and the need for personal conversion. Anglo-Catholics, on the other hand, remind us of the power and importance of the Sacraments, the nature of the Church as a divine institution, and the guiding principle of Anglicanism that we judge all of our doctrine and practice by how it relates to the early Church. A full and true Anglicanism has to have all of these things to function.

Amen and amen to that.  As Fr. Jonathan goes on to point out, however, there is a worsening divide in Continuing Anglicanism between Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics, and unless we find a way to heal this divide the prospect of Continuum unity looks bleak.  His prescription therefore:

What has been missing from (the effort to find common ground), however, has been a genuine commitment from all sides that the basics of classical Anglicanism are where that common ground is to be found, not in appeal to the lowest common denominator of what we are able to say together currently. In practice, what that means is that we have to be prepared to be challenged by one another by means of the very same formularies. Evangelicals do not need to run out and start buying incense, but they ought to be able to receive the Anglo-Catholic emphasis on the sacraments and the orders of ministry not as quirky things that those people do but as a genuine expression of what Anglicans have believed since long before there was such a thing as Church parties. Equally, Anglo-Catholics must concede that the formularies are clear about things like the authority of Scripture and justification by faith, and they must genuinely find a way to make peace with our Reformation heritage.

The problem is, I see much more of a willingness on the part of Evangelicals to embrace an "emphasis on the sacraments and the orders of ministry" than I do anything even approaching a concession from *modern* Anglo-Catholics "that the formularies are clear about things like the authority of Scripture and justification by faith, and they must genuinely find a way to make peace with our Reformation heritage".  Quite the opposite is true.  See for example this blog entry from Fr. Anthony Chadwick, where he raises the old "Calvinism" bugaboo and where the ACC's metropolitan Mark Haverland chimes in saying, "Father Hart is much more enamored of the Articles and Tudor divines than I. . . ."  One need only peruse the blog articles and comments of modern Anglo-Catholic clerics such as Chadwick and Haverland or witness the massive theological rewrite that is the ACC's new web page to see where modern Anglo-Catholics (who as Fr. Jonathan notes have jettisoned the comprehension ideal seen even in the Tractarians) are going.  Of this phenomenon, Bishop H. Lee Poteet writes:

The problem for the ACC at the moment is that too many of their clergy and not a few of their laity appear more to be playing Church than being The Church. The priest who said “We have the Church WE want” forgot to question if it was the Church which God wanted.

Bingo.  And if these modern Anglo-Catholic sectarians get their way by getting the church THEY want, well as I wrote over at the Anglican Diaspora this afternoon in response to Fr. Richard Sutter:

My prediction is that any "one Anglo-Catholic body" that manages to cobble together some sort of "pure church" consisting of carve-outs from the various Anglo-Catholic expressions within the Continuum is bound to die out eventually, probably sooner rather than later. Not only will it continue to bleed people to both Rome and Orthodoxy, as it has been doing ever since it appeared back in 19th century, but it will languish, stuck in mere aestheticsm with no sense of apostolic purpose. Meanwhile, Anglicans who understand and embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ, whether from the Continuum or those awful "generic low-church and charismanic sects" such as the ACNA and other bodies of the Realignment, will enjoy the blessing of God and accordingly see growth. There are signs even now that these classical Anglican folks in the Continuum and the Realignment are coming together for the cause not only of Anglican unity but for the cause of bringing the Gospel to a lost world.

So, it remains to be seen whether or not Anglo-Catholics in the Continuum will be able to participate meaningfully in the kind of classical Anglican comprehensiveness to which Fr. Jonathan and others call us.  As I've said before, so much the worse for them if they can't.

A Blessed Rogation Sunday to All

Some more (very lovely) William Byrd for you tonight:

Wanted: An Adult Faith in a Youth Culture

Great article.

Here's a related one from The Moody (!) Standard:  Students and professor discuss liturgical churches and worship.  As I noted in the combox, however:

A good article, though I would take issue with Liftin’s statement:

“If you plopped an ancient Christian down in modern times and eliminated the language barrier, he would most easily recognize the Eastern Orthodox service. If he entered a contemporary Evangelical church he’d probably think he had visited a service of Gnostic heretics.”

I seriously doubt that a second-century Christian would “easily recognize” the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy. The Orthodox liturgy has centuries of liturgical accretions that the Christian from the 2nd century would find not only odd, but likely off-putting and even inappropriate. On the other side of it, the 2nd century Christian would likely recognize the reading of Scripture, the preaching and the prayers of the Evangelical service, though he would wonder where the weekly Eucharist is and why all those damned electric instruments are blaring. If the account of the liturgy from St. Justin Martyr is any indication, I’d say the 2nd-century Christian would be most at home in a modern Anglican low church service.

Be Still My Soul

Why Traditional Churches Should Stick with Traditional Worship

It’s an article of faith these days that contemporary worship is the way to go if you want your church to grow. Thousands of churches will be planted this year – and every one will offer contemporary worship. Hymns are out – love songs to Jesus are in.

Traditional churches have seen young believers flocking to megachurches, so naturally they want to get in on the growth. But this is foolish. Traditional churches lack the musical depth, computer controlled lighting and sound equipment that are needed to generate the “praise-gasm” that young believers associate with God. Rock music seems out of place in a brightly lit chapel a communion table and stained glass.

People come to church to encounter God. A good worship service is transcendent; it helps people detach from this present world to connect with the divine. But when traditional churches try to be contemporary it usually comes across as forced, stilted or artificial. This dissonance jerks people back into the mundane world. Worshippers focus on the distraction instead of the Lord.

Article here.